DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final rejection is in response to the request for continued examination including remarks and amendments received by the office on 02 January 2026. Claims 1-7, 15-18 are pending. Claim 1 and 15 are amended. Claims 16-18 are newly presented. No claims have been newly cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure as originally filed does not support the amendment to claim 1 that the multimaterial membrane forms a bottom wall of the tank assembly such that the inner and outer surfaces of the membrane form the inner bottom and outer bottom surface. The specification as originally filed does not positively recite this limitation nor does the disclosure fairly suggest to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of this feature at the time of effective filing. In support of this amendment, applicant alleges that at least paragraph 0008 and figures 4 and 6 support this limitation. Examiner has reviewed the cited passages and is not persuaded. The cited figures clearly are described as depicting sub-assemblies in isolation (see paragraphs 0045 and 0047, each describing figures 4 and 6 as depicting the membrane assembly and not the tank assembly). Furthermore, the original disclosure does not disclose any embodiment which lacks platen (item 16 of applicant’s disclosure) and states that in practice, the platen and membrane are arranged so as to physically touch to prevent unwanted refractions (paragraph 0028).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure is silent with respect to affixing or not affixing the platen to the tank.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states that the multi-material membrane is disposed between the tank assembly (line 4) and also forms part of the bottom wall of the tank. It is not clear how the multi-material membrane can both be part of the tank assembly and also be disposed between the tank assembly and an other structural element (the OLED light source). For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the membrane is part of the bottom of the tank assembly, the tank assembly being disposed above the OLED light source.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the tank" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will regard this limitation as referring to the tank assembly introduced in parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0126644 to Slaczka et al (‘644 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0129167 to Diego Castenon (‘167 hereafter) further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0195994 to El-Siblani et al. (‘994 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘644 teaches a multilayer, multimaterial membrane (Paragraph 0044) which is radiation transparent (paragraph 0014) referred to as a multi-material separation layer (Paragraph 0029). ‘644 teaches that the multi-material separation layer may comprise three or four or more layers of laminated material (Paragraph 0044). Regarding the uppermost layer, ‘644 teaches that this layer should have sufficient oxygen permeability to effect inhibition of curing (Paragraph 0035) and expressly teaches using FEP (Paragraph 0039) or a polyolefin (Paragraph 0044, PMP or Polymethylepentene being a polyolefin). Regarding the remaining layers not in contact with the resin ‘644 teaches PDMS as a suitable material as well as expressly teaching materials other than PDMS may be utilized in the first layer (Paragraph 0037, the first layer of PDMS reading upon the radiation-transparent flexible substrate with a first and second side). ‘644 teaches that a third material may be located between the first layer and the surface of the container (Paragraph 0045). ‘644 further teaches the 3-D printing system wherein the multimaterial membrane forms a bottom surface of the tank (Fig 2 and paragraph 0029). ‘644 does not explicitly teach that the third material comprises either a polyolefin or FEP, but ‘644 teaches that materials compatible with PDMS include the materials discussed throughout the disclosure as suitable for use as a barrier material such as FEP and PMP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a layer of PMP or FEP as a third material as ‘644 is silent with respect to a specific material prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and make a selection, and both FEP and PMP are discussed in ‘644 as materials suitable for use in a layer bonded to PDMS presenting a reasonable expectation of success.
‘644 further teaches an additive manufacturing printing system including a tank assembly containing resin (Fig 1A) and that the multimaterial membrane is disposed between the light source and tank assembly (Paragraph 0053) ‘644 does not teach the specific arrangement of layers or the light source is OLED. However, it would have been obvious to try the claimed combination of FEP-substrate-polyolefin since it has been held that it would be obvious for one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to arrange the prior art’s disclosed materials in to the claimed arrangement since the disclosure of the prior art discloses a constrained, finite set of options for layers of a multimaterial membrane and assures one of ordinary skill of a reasonable chance of success.
In the same field of endeavor, stereolithography, ‘167 teaches the use an OLED light source (paragraph 0070) for the benefit of closely integrating the light source and resin tank. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 with those of ‘167 for the benefit of providing a stereolithographic apparatus which is compact and has good material curing and release properties. ‘644 in view of ‘167 does not teach the construction of the bottom of the tank assembly claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘994 teaches the multi-material membrane forms a bottom wall of the tank assembly, including an inner surface of the wall facing inward toward the resin and an outer surface opposite the inner surface and facing outward toward the OLED light source, the outer surface being an exterior bottom surface of the tank assembly (Figs 6 and 8, items 55, 54, 57, 48 and paragraph 0087) for the benefit of promoting release of newly formed layers and preventing delamination. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of increasing part release.
Regarding claim 2, ‘644 teaches a layer of radiation transparent flexible substrate comprising silicone (Paragraph 0043, PDMS).
Regarding claim 4, ‘644 teaches the thickness of the first film (Paragraph 0034). In same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘968 teaches a thickness of the film layer which encompasses the claimed range (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘968 for the benefit of making a sufficiently durable membrane.
Regarding claim 7, ‘644 in view of ‘167 does not teach the claimed membrane/frame/tank assembly. In the same field of endeavor, stereolithography, ‘994 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the multi-material membrane (Fig 8 item 57) is secured in a frame (Fig 8 item 45) having a lip (Fig 8 item 64) that engages with a groove of a sidewall of the tank assembly (Fig 8 item 64) for the benefit of securely yet releasably positioning the membrane. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of constructing an easily repairable stereolithographic apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, ‘644 in view of ‘167 does not teach the claimed membrane/frame tank/assembly. In the same field of endeavor, stereolithography, ‘994 teaches the 3D printing system comprising a frame configured to stretch the multi-material membrane along a first plane parallel to extent of the frame (Fig 8 item 51), and wherein the frame is secured to a bottom rim of a sidewall of the tank, thereby positioning the multi-material membrane as the bottom surface of the tank (Fig 8 item 64) for the benefit of securely yet releasably positioning the membrane. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of constructing an easily repairable stereolithographic apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, ‘994 teaches the 3D printing system comprising a platen disposed outside the tank assembly between the OLED light source and the outer surface of the multi-material membrane, the platen providing structural support to the tank assembly when the tank assembly is placed thereupon (Figs 6 and 8, items 55, 54, 57, 48 and paragraph 0087) for the benefit of promoting release of newly formed layers and preventing delamination. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of increasing part release.
Regarding claim 17, ‘994 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the platen is not affixed to the tank (Figs 6 and 8, items 55, 54, 57, 48 and paragraph 0087) for the benefit of promoting release of newly formed layers and preventing delamination. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of increasing part release.
Regarding claim 18, ‘994 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the tank comprises a frame affixed to a perimeter of the membrane and configured to stretch the membrane along a plane parallel to an extent of the frame (Figs 6 and 8, items 55, 54, 57, 48 and paragraph 0087) for the benefit of promoting release of newly formed layers and preventing delamination. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of increasing part release.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘644 in view of ‘167 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Tensile properties of fumed silica filled polydimethylsiloxane networks” by Yue et al. (“Yue” hereafter).
Regarding claim 3, ‘644 in view of ‘167 teaches the use of fillers, but does not disclose the use of fumed silica. In the related art of film production, “Yue” teaches the use of fumed silica in a PDMS membrane for the benefit of increasing the strain resistance of the PDMS film (RESULTS, table 2). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the benefit of increasing the strain resistance of the flexible membrane.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘644 in view of ‘1679 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0240968 to Thomas et al. (‘968 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, ‘644 in view of ‘167 does not teach the thickness of the second film. In same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘968 teaches a thickness of the film layer which encompasses the claimed range (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘968 for the benefit of making a sufficiently durable membrane.
Regarding claim 6, ‘644 in view of ‘167 does not teach the thickness of the radiation transparent flexible substrate. In same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘968 teaches a thickness of the film layer which encompasses the claimed range (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 in view of ‘167 with those of ‘968 for the benefit of making a sufficiently durable membrane.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant application, applicant has argued that the previously and above applied prior art, particularly the ‘644 and ‘994 references do not teach the membrane forming a bottom surface of the tank as required by amended claim 1 and new claim 16-18. Examiner agrees, accordingly a new rejection in view of amendment is made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743